Introduction
Music performance anxiety (MPA) is a widespread and problematic issue (Steptoe & Fidler, Reference STEPTOE and FIDLER1987). Although a range of definitions of MPA exist (Brodsky, Reference BRODSKY1996; Salmon, Reference SALMON1990; Steptoe, Reference STEPTOE1989), the most widely used description comes from Kenny (Reference KENNY, Juslin and Sloboda2009):
Music performance anxiety is the experience of marked and persistent anxious apprehension related to musical performance that has arisen through specific anxiety conditioning experiences and which is manifested through combinations of affective, cognitive, somatic and behavioural symptoms…It affects musicians across the lifespan and is at least partially independent of years of training, practice and level of musical accomplishment. It may or may not impair the quality of the musical performance (p. 433).
MPA is faced by musicians across different ages and levels of expertise, though most of the research refers to undergraduate music students and professional musicians as having high levels of MPA (Demirbatir, Reference DEMIRBATIR2012; Fehm & Schmidt, Reference FEHM and SCHMIDT2006; Gilbert, Reference GILBERT2021; Osborne & Kenny, Reference OSBORNE and KENNY2008; Payne et al., Reference PAYNE, LEWIS and MCCASKILL2020). MPA can impact performance quality (Güven, Reference GÜVEN2016; Studer et al., Reference STUDER, GOMEZ, HILDEBRANDT, ARIAL and DANUSER2011) and mental health (Studer et al., Reference STUDER, GOMEZ, HILDEBRANDT, ARIAL and DANUSER2011) and can even prevent a musician from pursuing their musical studies or career (Fehm & Schmidt, Reference FEHM and SCHMIDT2006; Orejudo Hernández et al., Reference OREJUDO HERNÁNDEZ, ZARZA-ALZUGARAY and CASANOVA2018) and diminish the enjoyment of learning music for leisure (Braden et al., Reference BRADEN, OSBORNE and WILSON2015). There are various sources of support available to musicians learning to manage MPA and arguably one of the more obvious is one-to-one studio teaching. Given the individualised nature of the teaching studio, this setting might offer an environment wherein students develop a strong personal relationship with their teacher (Gaunt et al., Reference GAUNT, CREECH, LONG and HALLAM2012). Moreover, students often rely on their tutors for musical development and career advancement (O’Connor, Reference O’CONNOR1991), and MPA management seems embedded in the development of performance skills generally. In light of this, the teaching studio might offer some unique opportunities to assist with MPA management for a diverse range of students, from aspiring professionals to those pursuing music for personal enjoyment.
Nerland (Reference NERLAND2007) defined studio teaching as ‘the teaching of the principal instrument/an activity organised as one-to-one interaction, situated in an apprenticeship-like relationship between the student and a distinguished performer’ (Nerland, Reference NERLAND2007, p. 399). While her definition specifically references distinguished performers – which may be specific to tertiary-level students – one-to-one music tuition occurs in various settings, such as schools, universities, conservatoria, private studios, teachers’ or students’ homes, rented spaces, music shops and dedicated music schools. In this paper, the term ‘teaching studio’ encompasses all these diverse settings where one-to-one instruction takes place. The nature of the settings can influence studio teachers’ practices (Davidson & Jordan, Reference DAVIDSON, JORDAN and Bresler2007), for instance, teachers working independently in private studios may receive less support for addressing MPA compared to those employed by music institutions, who may have access to MPA resources and additional support. Moreover, conservatoire tutors might find MPA more prevalent than in other settings, as MPA tends to increase during this level of learning (Demirbatir, Reference DEMIRBATIR2012; Fehm & Schmidt, Reference FEHM and SCHMIDT2006; Gilbert, Reference GILBERT2021; Osborne & Kenny, Reference OSBORNE and KENNY2008; Payne et al., Reference PAYNE, LEWIS and MCCASKILL2020).
Most of the research on MPA has reported on its prevalence and ways that musicians cope with it (Fishbein et al., Reference FISHBEIN, MIDDLESTADT, OTTATI, STRAUS and ELLIS1988; Papageorgi et al., Reference PAPAGEORGI, CREECH and WELCH2013), with some authors concluding their papers by appending recommendations of ways that music educators can assist with this issue. For example, Wristen (Reference WRISTEN2013) reported the experience of 287 undergraduate music students through the analysis of a questionnaire and then added that music educators should have a role in helping their students acknowledge challenges within the music discipline and the triggers that might cause mental distress. Similarly, in a study exploring descriptions of students’ worst performance experiences, Osborne & Kenny (Reference OSBORNE and KENNY2008) added suggestions that music educators should provide frequent, low-stress opportunities for performance, select appropriate repertoire to match their students’ ability and incorporate psychological skills training into their teaching. A literature review by Patston (Reference PATSTON2014) proposed that music educators should have a critical role in the developmental trajectory of MPA, concluding with recommendations on how teaching practices can support MPA management. The advice from Patston (Reference PATSTON2014) included promoting discussions of feelings that might arise in performance, post-performance debriefing, appropriate repertoire selection and realistic goal-setting.
There is some research that has moved beyond recommendations that may be more or less supported by research evidence, to investigations of targeted MPA management strategies in music education settings, such as classroom and studio teaching. Music educators have reported the use of MPA strategies in their lessons including accepting mistakes, breathing, positive self-talk, preparation and simulated performance (Bugos & Lee, Reference BUGOS and LEE2015; Gill et al., Reference GILL, OSBORNE and MCPHERSON2024; Huang & Yu, Reference HUANG and YU2022; MacAfee & Comeau, Reference MACAFEE and COMEAU2020; Mazzarolo et al., Reference MAZZAROLO, BURWELL and SCHUBERT2023, Reference MAZZAROLO, BURWELL, OSBORNE and SCHUBERT2026; Moura & Serra, Reference MOURA and SERRA2021; Ryan et al., Reference RYAN, BOUCHER and RYAN2021; Sieger, Reference SIEGER2017). Such studies tend to remain rather general, collecting teachers’ reports of strategies, without necessarily gaining more qualitative information about their attitudes or contextualising information. Gill et al., (Reference GILL, OSBORNE and MCPHERSON2024) explored this further by seeking information about the use and frequency of strategies and found that 41% of 176 studio tutors reported offering simulated performance opportunities. In addition, through the analysis of semi-structured interviews, Moura & Serra (Reference MOURA and SERRA2021) found that one out of four studio tutors implemented MPA strategies into their studio once the student could play a piece entirely, or in the class preceding an examination or concert.
Although teachers have reported the use of MPA strategies with their students, studies have also shown that MPA is rarely discussed in lessons (Gill et al., Reference GILL, OSBORNE and MCPHERSON2024; MacAfee & Comeau, Reference MACAFEE and COMEAU2022; Moura & Serra, Reference MOURA and SERRA2021). This might be due to the sensitive nature of the topic and a stigma around speaking about or seeking help for performance-related issues such as MPA (Gill et al., Reference GILL, OSBORNE and MCPHERSON2024; Sieger, Reference SIEGER2017; Wesner et al., Reference WESNER, NOYES and DAVIS1990). Moreover, some teachers may prefer to avoid discussing MPA, particularly with younger students, or students who do not exhibit MPA symptoms, in an effort to minimise its chances of occurrence (MacAfee & Comeau, Reference MACAFEE and COMEAU2022; Sieger, Reference SIEGER2017). However, Gill et al. (Reference GILL, OSBORNE and MCPHERSON2024) have suggested that open discussions about MPA and shared experiences of this could help students to understand that MPA is common and inevitable. Moura & Serra (Reference MOURA and SERRA2021) found that while teachers believed MPA to be common and possibly even useful for performance, they also recognised that debilitating levels of MPA can impact mental health and lead to the abandonment of musical studies. Perhaps, however, a lack of engagement with MPA discussions reflects the view that some music educators feel unable to deal with MPA because of a lack of training or being unqualified in the area (Moura & Serra, Reference MOURA and SERRA2021).
While the preceding discussion has focused on helping students cope with MPA, it is equally important to consider its potential causes, particularly within the teaching environment. Within the conducting context, Ryan & Andrews (Reference RYAN and ANDREWS2009) found that 84% of 201 choral singers reported that their conductor’s behaviour influenced their level of MPA. Specifically, conductors who appeared anxious, stressed or exhibited negative attitudes were more likely to induce anxiety in their students. In a later study of adolescent piano students, Ryan et al. (Reference RYAN, BOUCHER and RYAN2021) reported that nearly half of the 62 students experienced nervousness when playing for their teachers during lessons. This anxiety stemmed from fears of poor performance, disappointing the teacher or perceived expectations of perfection. Even the private lesson setting may elicit similar performance-related pressures for students, potentially contributing to their overall experience of MPA.
These studies collectively suggest that teachers could play an important role in helping students manage existing MPA, but also in preventing its exacerbation. The literature on performance anxiety in the context of music education has shown that teachers are familiar with a range of strategies for managing MPA, but their attitudes have not been investigated in much detail. The purpose of this study is to explore teachers’ understanding of MPA and their approaches to its management within the studio teaching setting.
Method
This study followed another, broader project exploring MPA management among Australian music educators through a questionnaire reported elsewhere (Mazzarolo et al., Reference MAZZAROLO, BURWELL, OSBORNE and SCHUBERT2026). Of the 52 participants who completed this questionnaire, 13 studio teachers agreed to participate in semi-structured interviews exploring their attitudes further. While participants were all studio teachers, they were not asked about their specific teaching settings. The interview study employed a qualitative analysis to explore teachers’ understanding and attitudes towards MPA, as well as their experiences with this topic, regardless of the context of their teaching. The study received ethical approval from the Human Research Ethics Advisory Panel of UNSW Australia (HC220436). The participants were assured that their identities would be kept confidential and would not be disclosed in the interview transcripts or final report.
Data collection
The interviews were conducted by the first author over a period of six months, online over Zoom. The semi-structured interview format has been considered useful by Cassell & Symon (Reference CASSELL and SYMON2004) for examining topics that require exploration of different levels of meaning, meeting the purpose of this exploratory study. An interview schedule was developed to ensure some consistency, while allowing flexibility for participants to share their thoughts and experiences more expansively. The questions were centred on the following areas: pre-performance lessons; discussions of MPA in the teaching studio; lesson elements supporting MPA; observation of MPA symptoms; situations inducing MPA; the teacher’s role in addressing MPA and engagement in training or with research on MPA.
All interviews were audio-recorded with the participants’ consent. The interviewer’s approach was conversational in style, to encourage the interviewees to speak freely. The interviews lasted on average 32 minutes, ranging from 27 minutes to 47 minutes. The interviewer’s contribution constituted 14.7% of the wordage, while the interviewee’s contribution constituted 85.3% of the wordage. The recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim, then reviewed and refined for analytical clarity: filler words and non-substantive repetitions were removed to enhance readability. This approach to transcription reflects an emphasis on the meaning of the text, rather than its linguistic form (Brinkmann & Kvale, Reference BRINKMANN and KVALE2018; Kvale, Reference KVALE1996).
Data analysis
The data were analysed thematically. Through data familiarisation, the primary author and one co-author identified multiple points of potential analytic interest. This was achieved by reading through the transcribed data repeatedly, to gain a deep understanding of the content. Analytic memos were used to note initial thoughts, potential patterns and interesting points (Saldaña, Reference SALDAÑA2016). Importantly, these analytic memos were more than summaries of the data, but included notes about apparent contradictions, unanswered questions, insightful connections and future directions, all of which are considered useful for thematic analysis (Saldaña, Reference SALDAÑA2016). These notes were then used to develop latent codes to reflect deep and implicit meanings, rather than semantic and explicit codes that cover surface meaning (Braun & Clarke, Reference BRAUN and CLARKE2021; Guest et al., Reference GUEST, MACQUEEN and NAMEY2012). Shared patterned meaning between codes was identified to generate themes, which were later developed and refined as the analysis progressed. It became evident that certain questions yielded richer, more nuanced insights directly aligned with the study’s aims. Consequently, the analysis and reporting in this paper focus on responses concerning pre-performance lessons (defined as the last few lessons leading up to a student’s performance and/or examination), discussions of MPA in the teaching studio and lesson elements supporting MPA.
Reflexive analysis played an important role in developing an awareness of how the primary author’s personal positionings might influence their research (Braun & Clarke, Reference BRAUN and CLARKE2021). The primary author’s expertise as a piano teacher and performer enabled an insider’s approach, guiding the design of the study and analysis of the data. Alongside this advantage, it should be acknowledged that this expertise could have an unconscious impact on the interpretation of the data, though to some extent this was balanced through discussions with the collaborating researchers. The reporting of the analysis is narrative and reflective, raising questions and areas for further exploration, which Persson (Reference PERSSON1996) – a key contributor to the psychology of gifted education research – considered useful for exploring relatively unknown domains, such as MPA and the teaching studio.
Results
Thirteen studio music tutors (7 female, 6 male), ranging in age from 21 to 73 years (M = 25, SD = 8.48), participated in the interviews. The sample of tutors taught the following instruments: piano (7 tutors), violin (2), guitar (2), trumpet (1) and clarinet (1). Most tutors taught classical music (10 tutors), while the other tutors taught pop (2), and one tutor taught multiple genres. The tutors had a wide range of teaching experience, ranging from 2 to 40 years of teaching (M = 6, SD = 4.94). They mostly taught students aged 11 years or younger (49 students) and 12–17 years old (27 students), teaching 7 students in the 18–24 year old range, and 6 in the 25+ year range.
In the interviews, the participants discussed a wide range of strategies that could be used in the studio, demonstrating their commitment to supporting their students with MPA. The most common strategies discussed were accepting mistakes (mentioned by 10 out of the 13 participants) and simulated performance (10). Other strategies mentioned included preparation (9), self-efficacy (7), breathing (5), presentation skills (2), positive self-talk (2), MPA discussions (2) and performance de-briefing (1).
Teachers spoke enthusiastically about supporting their students with MPA, often by emphasising the value of overcoming this obstacle considering the long-term experience of learning music. Participant 2 showed a strong sense of personal responsibility for the outcome of their students’ experiences, appearing to identify personally with their situation. It is worth noting how many times they expressed this in terms of their own fears and desires:
I prepare them for MPA because I want this to be a positive experience for them. I want them not just to continue, but to love music. I want them to think back in their older years, that piano or flute was for them, something very special. I can’t have them have a negative experience, because that’s damaging their thoughts about music in the future.
Participant 2 (emphasis added)Participant 3, similarly, spoke warmly of the experience of music-making, emphasising to their students its role in ‘enhancing our and other people’s lives’, with music being ‘a gift that’s being made for them in that space’. Similarly, too, Participant 4 encouraged their students to ‘recognise their purpose and values in what they do’, asking them to think about ‘why they started making music in the first place, why they enjoy it, why they spend so much time, effort and energy into what they’re doing’. These efforts point to intrinsic values that seemingly, teachers believe underpin their students’ goals, using them as a source of motivation, encouragement or reassurance for their pupils.
Conceptions of music performance anxiety
A common theme that was shared by five teachers was the idea that MPA is inevitable for their students. For example, Participant 12 suggested that ‘I might be wrong here, but I think everyone experiences performance anxiety’. This tutor continued to reflect on the idea that musicians experience MPA at different levels: ‘It’s just a matter of degree really and a matter of whether or not it detriments [sic] the way you perform’. Similarly, Participant 3 remarked that all their students experience MPA and that those that don’t are an exception: ‘They all have [MPA]. There are a few who don’t. I don’t understand those kids, but there are a few who just do not have it’.
One tutor asserted that MPA should be regarded as normal, but at the same time suggested that it is an action point that is not necessarily met:
I think we should normalise performance anxiety in general, even in our teaching. I think it should be emphasised that it’s pretty normal, and it’s not some wall that we can’t overcome… A lot of us [musicians], we just think of it like it’s just part of what we do and we just have to deal with it, and in the same sense for mental health, that’s really unhealthy…Mental health problems are problems and so is performance anxiety. It’s not just something that we should just deal with and live with. It’s something that we should work towards fixing, right?
Participant 1 (emphasis added)The assertion that it is ‘unhealthy’ to just deal with MPA seems to present an important nuance: normalising MPA should not result in complacency or neglect. Instead, the emphasis on it being something that musicians ‘should work towards fixing’ implies a proactive approach, though the repeated use of the word ‘should’ implies that such an approach is not yet in place. This tutor is not discussing their own practice explicitly, but it does seem clear that they feel studio teaching in general is marked by neglect in MPA issues.
There was some implication that music studio teaching remains conservative in its approaches, perhaps falling behind the progress that has been made in the management of performance anxiety more generally: ‘Anxiety is a big thing these days, so why is it less important in music lessons, right?’ (Participant 13). This conservatism may stem from several factors, including resistance from teachers who do not see MPA as part of their remit (Laursen & Chesky, Reference LAURSEN and CHESKY2014), isolation and a lack of professional development opportunities (Burwell et al., Reference BURWELL, CAREY and BENNETT2019) that limit the opportunity for teachers’ to learn about key challenges such as MPA, and a focus on technical proficiency over holistic musician development (Tahirbegi, Reference TAHIRBEGI2022). Similarly, a tendency to dismiss MPA was mentioned by Participant 11, describing a common attitude that has ‘just been told to us’ – ‘you’ll get over it’; remarking that MPA has been made ‘taboo’; and noting that elsewhere in settings such as public speaking, students are routinely prepared to deal with performance anxiety. This participant seemed to perceive some inflexibility in studio practice and recommended ‘moving away from that one-track mind’.
Flexibility does, however, seem to lie behind suggestions made by Participant 3 who suggested a shift of language in the studio: ‘I use the term performance stress, not anxiety: I think performance stress is more positive’. To reframe discussions about MPA, the participant would tell students, for example, ‘you’re going to be hyped up… it’s going to get faster by itself because you’re going to be excited’. They also suggested referring to MPA as a ‘superpower’, ‘because this gives you a clarity of mind; and that “flight or fight” response means that your brain is working so much better that you can think so much faster in that space’.
Similarly, Participant 11 mentioned a facilitative impact that MPA can have: ‘For some people their anxiety might be what drives them to perform really well’. However, they also mentioned variety among individuals: ‘anxiety also ruins other people’ (emphasis added). Their conclusion was that studio teachers needed to be more aware of the complexity of MPA and its different manifestations in musicians.
The complexity of MPA was highlighted by Participant 9, dismissing once again the attitude that ‘it’s just part of being a musician’, they argued that although MPA might be normal, it is not normal for it to cause ‘genuine distress’, and if it does, it ‘needs to change’; ‘you should always feel a little bit excited rather than horrified’. This should apply whether music is, for the student, ‘a hobby’, or ‘if it’s a job that’s causing you distress: that’s even worse’.
Across the 13 interviews, there were no clear trends linking MPA management to the individual characteristics of young musicians. However, Participant 9 raised gender as a potential variant, remarking on the emotional experiences of teenage girls, and how this influences the types of practices they encourage in their students:
The majority of my students are teenage girls, between 14 and 18 years old, and there’s a real sense of shame a lot of the time in not being perfect at things, so we do a lot of self-talk about how music is about practising, and practising efficiently and effectively.
Participant 9
Arguably, ‘not being perfect at things’ is perhaps a reference to mistake-making in music, but here, Participant 9 refers to that attitude as being a common part of life for adolescent girls, rather than being specific to MPA.
Participant 3 referred to some variety in their approach for different age groups. For older students, there might be a shift of emphasis from technique to interpretation:
The older ones, for example, [senior] students, from their [mock exams] to their actual performance…We’ll cover the feedback they’ve had, how they can incorporate that, but not so much technically, more so to do with the emotions that come with that sort of stuff…We’ll also do a practice run, at least one practice run. Usually, two practice runs for little kids…Another thing I do with younger kids is [to] actually intentionally put them under stress.
Participant 3
Five teachers asserted that MPA increases with age, and that younger students experience less MPA than older students:
But I find the younger ones tend to not get nervous. It’s like they think: ‘it’s just something you do, you just do it’. They’re not conscious enough to know what they are going through.
Participant 2
In some cases, the MPA strategies were linked to particular instruments. For example, Participant 2 suggested that pianists should be thinking about their breathing more explicitly: ‘I’ve noticed that when you’re working with singers we’re always working with where you breathe, but piano players forget that you actually have to breathe…So I’d say things like “you have to remember here you’re going to breathe.”’ On the other hand, anxious breathing might cause specific technical issues for wind players:
Occasionally with senior students I’ll get them to go on the treadmill, so we simulate these [MPA] sensations. Especially for wind players. When you get stressed, you breathe shallowly, so you have a fast heart and you feel shaky and a little bit nervous and agitated. Obviously running on a treadmill simulates that and is as close I can get without it actually being scary.
Participant 9
Preparing for performance
The participants were asked about how lessons might change in pre-performance lessons: the last few lessons before a performance. Ten of the 13 tutors mentioned that their pre-performance lessons were more focused on familiarising their students with the pressure of performance and preparing them for a ‘high-pressure, high-stress situation’ (Participant 1). Most commonly, for 8 out of the 13 tutors, this was achieved by setting up a practice run where students performed their programme in front of the tutor, with the tutor providing feedback only once all the pieces had been performed. Some tutors (3 out of 13) would further simulate the performance experience by planning distractions such as door bangs, sitting further away from the pupil, clapping once they finished performing and pretending that they were the examiner. Participant 8 noted that ‘a lot of them don’t quite understand that mistakes are pretty common’ in performance, and explained that ‘when their performance is coming up, I always prefer to push them towards playing through their mistakes and getting comfortable with making mistakes’.
Participant 1 highlighted a change in pre-performance lessons, mentioning that the focus on detail and correction that occurs normally might not be helpful now. It seems significant that this is explained in terms of ‘perfection’ and ‘nit-picking’:
I think during normal lessons we tend to focus on small details and really work towards perfectionism, and in the performance that is obviously not possible a lot of the time. I think it’s really important to let your students be aware of that: the pursuit of perfection. You should also embrace the imperfections in the piece and know how to play around that and that’s why I feel like the simulation of these performances, playing from start to finish, is something that I personally do, and I find quite helpful to get them ready. Up until the performance, [teachers] tend to nit-pick on small details that need fixing, and ironically, the perfectionist mindset doesn’t really advance anything, especially when it comes to how they perform, because it’s just not very realistic to expect a perfect performance every time. Bringing it back down a notch tends to help quite a bit and I think we could extend that even to our everyday lessons, not just the preparation for performance.
In contrast, three tutors reported that they do not change their behaviour in pre-performance lessons. Participant 11 asserted that they displayed a consistent, relaxed attitude towards mistakes even in regular lessons:
I just sort of remind them ‘It’s okay, let’s just take a deep breath, don’t worry about [mistakes], it’s just a one-off that happens’. That’s kind of how in normal day-to-day lessons I would address that anxiety of ‘I need to play perfectly because I’m showing my teacher’.
Participant 11
Participant 5 aimed to maintain a consistent approach: ‘I try not to change any sort of format in my lessons in the few weeks leading up to an exam and I maintain the same vibe, the same approach to my students. I don’t want them to feel too pressured’.
At the same time, some tutors reflected that MPA strategies could be embedded into regular lessons more consistently, with Participant 5 stating ‘maybe [MPA management] should be a more integrated part of the lesson’. Similarly, Participant 4 asserted:
[MPA] is a piece in the puzzle. It’s a really important piece, but it’s just a piece in the puzzle. There are so many different pieces that we have to know about and be able to educate them about and so I think it’s a piece that’s often left out or left to the last minute. That piece needs to be incorporated more into regular teaching, so I try and sort of subtly put mental skills in my students’ lesson without them even recognising it.
Participant 4
Managing mistakes
Although participants were not asked explicitly about the consequences of MPA, 10 of the 13 tutors mentioned that in pre-performance lessons, a significant priority was approaching and responding to errors. It is worth noting that the word ‘mistake’ or ‘error’ was used 84 times across the interviews by the interviewees. The interviewer also used the word ‘mistake’ 3 times, but only, in every case, after the participant had used it. Perhaps paradoxically, while the teachers themselves kept mentioning mistakes, they positioned them as something not to be concerned over, reporting that mistakes should be downplayed and not even mentioned, with Participant 3 saying ‘I try not to use those words’. They spoke as if it was quite easy to dismiss mistakes, often sharing what they would normally say to their students if mistakes occurred in pre-performance lessons:
I always [offer] just bits of encouragement, like the typical ‘they don’t know if you make a mistake if you don’t show it’. Just like encourage them to feel better about mistakes or [try] to help them feel like it’s not a big deal if they make a mistake, and not only do people not recognise the mistake, but it’s better for you. If you worry about the mistake, then you’re not going to be as focused on the next section, so it’s better to just keep going, roll with it, and the performance is better overall.
Participant 6 (emphasis added)
These references to mistakes might be considered in the light of ‘perfection’, with this term, along with ‘perfect’, mentioned by 10 tutors. For example, Participant 12 remarked that: ‘It will never be perfect and all you have to hope for is that it will be as close to perfect as possible’. Participant 9 framed their advice in terms of their own expectations, ‘because I don’t expect perfection and I do explicitly tell them: when you play through this piece, you’re not going to be perfect. You’re going to make mistakes and will notice them [but] you need to let it pass’. Similarly, Participant 13 advised ‘you don’t have to perform at 100%’.
In addition, four teachers seemed to assume that students themselves have significant concerns about mistake-making, though the teachers dismissed its importance by making rather dramatic comparisons: if mistakes occur ‘it’s not the end of the world’ (both Participant 1 and Participant 4) and ‘nobody is going to die’ (Participant 10). Such efforts to be reassuring might – again, perhaps ironically – escalate the terms of discussion.
There were several cases in which tutors raised other issues, in terms that were somewhat ambiguous. For example, Participant 9 reflected on the impact on well-being and the persistence of negative feelings, adding:
They get a piece of paper. They get anxious. They have all these negative feelings about what is basically a hobby right? It’s a very important part of our lives, but I don’t want it to be a bad experience for them.
Participant 9
In this response, the tutor referred to exams as a mere ‘piece of paper’, and yet, an important part of their lives, but also, ‘basically a hobby’. Perhaps, this tutor was referring to multiple pupils, reflecting several different attitudes, or was acknowledging that MPA can even affect students who are merely learning ‘for fun’. The contradictions within this response could also reflect the complexity of the one-to-one teaching relationship and the tensions and ambiguity that might exist in this setting. Certainly, it seems to suggest that studio tutors face many challenges in assisting their pupils with MPA management.
Participant 3 went further than Participant 9, describing potential impacts on mental health in remarkably strong terms:
I think it is something that can create or destroy a musician. I think it is so important that it actually leads people to kill themselves when it’s not dealt with properly. It leads to drug abuse, and I just can’t believe that’s even happened… I think it’s paramount for people’s mental health, and if you teach people how to deal with performance stress, you’ve given them a skill that transfers to every other part of their life.
Participant 3
The teacher went on to mention a link between performance and identity and how this can be significantly hindered by MPA:
Your performance is so tied up in your identity that being able to present yourself the way that you know that you can is a massive gift, that will build into your mental health in good ways. And if you don’t know how to do it, that disconnect between who you are and what you know you can be, and that performance where you were trying to show that to the rest of the world, is soul destroying.
Participant 3
It is worth noting that this explanation is expressed in second person – ‘your performance…your identity…present yourself’. This suggests a hypothetical case, which was not uncommon across the interviews; but because of this, it was sometimes unclear whose perspectives were being conveyed – the pupils’ or the tutors’. Perhaps this confusion might likewise occur in the teaching studio, with tutors setting the terms of discussion, and their attitudes towards MPA potentially influencing their pupils in unintended ways.
The teaching studio itself as a setting for MPA
Six out of the 13 teachers mentioned that their students’ performance quality can be lowered by MPA, not only in formal performance situations but in the presence of any listeners, including themselves as a tutor. This suggests that studio tutors themselves can be a contributing source of anxiety to musicians.
Participant 2 suggested that a reason why mistakes might occur in the teaching studio more than the practice room is because of the pressure associated with performing in front of another person, and particularly, the teacher who is there to critique them:
[Students] say: ‘look, it didn’t sound like it did in the practice room at home’. And I say: ‘because it’s never going to sound like that. In the practice room, everything goes right…Then you come to your lesson and there’s more pressure on you. I’m listening to every note you play, so, therefore, your expectation and therefore where you should be, is probably [lower]. You will make a mistake’.
Participant 2
Similarly, Participant 13 emphasised the comfort the student feels in the practice room, as opposed to the pressure felt in the studio or exam room:
I will say to them: ‘well, how do you feel when you are in your practice room and by yourself, when there’s no one else and you’re just practising?’ They would say: ‘yeah, great, fantastic! There’s no one looking at me. I feel really confident’. So, I help them to visualise when they go to the exam, to put this invisible wall around and just pretend they’re inside their own room, in their own house, just practising and enjoying it.
Participant 13
There was some evidence that the tutors perceived their studio lessons as anxiety-inducing for their pupils; however, Participant 11 presented themselves as a relaxed alternative to performing as such. This tutor suggested that they can be a person of comfort to the student, asking them to imagine that ‘you’re just playing for me in the lesson’. Even so, this tutor reported that ‘my students really like me, but it’s also really easy to still feel nervous about your lessons’.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ understanding of MPA and their approaches to its management within the studio teaching setting. There was a clear concern for MPA and the impact it can have on musicians, including the persistence of negative feelings, well-being, identity, and in extreme cases, drug abuse and suicide. A frustration towards the lack of awareness that is given to MPA specifically, as opposed to performance anxiety more generally, was also mentioned. Regardless, teachers showed that they were interested and committed to helping their students manage MPA. In addition, the teachers were able to discuss a range of strategies that they used. Simulated performance and accepting mistakes arose as the most common strategies, aligning with what has been reported in the literature elsewhere (Huang & Yu, Reference HUANG and YU2022; Mazzarolo et al., Reference MAZZAROLO, BURWELL and SCHUBERT2023, Reference MAZZAROLO, BURWELL, OSBORNE and SCHUBERT2026; Moura & Serra, Reference MOURA and SERRA2021). Although teachers appeared as caring and dedicated to supporting MPA management, some contradictions and potential problems became apparent, raising questions for researchers and practitioners.
Teachers understood MPA to be common among their pupils, normalising it as a challenge experienced by most musicians. The teachers in this study primarily taught children and adolescents, highlighting the prevalence of MPA even among younger students aligning with existing research (Boucher & Ryan, Reference BOUCHER and RYAN2011; Dempsey & Comeau, Reference DEMPSEY and COMEAU2019; Fernholz et al., Reference FERNHOLZ, MUMM, PLAG, NOERES, ROTTER, WILLICH, STRÖHLE, BERGHÖFER and SCHMIDT2019). Importantly, they observed MPA affecting not only students aiming for performance careers but also those learning music as a hobby. While much previous MPA research has focused on pre-professional and undergraduate music students (Demirbatir, Reference DEMIRBATIR2012; Fehm & Schmidt, Reference FEHM and SCHMIDT2006; Gilbert, Reference GILBERT2021; Osborne & Kenny, Reference OSBORNE and KENNY2008; Payne et al., Reference PAYNE, LEWIS and MCCASKILL2020), expanding inquiry beyond this context provides insights for teachers to better support the diversity of students they might teach, regardless of their age or specific musical goals.
Despite tutors’ acknowledgement of MPA as prevalent among young musicians, there appeared to be some concern about its neglect in the teaching studio, with tutors mentioning that musicians should not just have to ‘deal with it’ (Participants 1 and 11). This, alongside the assertion that performance anxiety was being addressed in other fields, pointed to some inflexibility in studio practice and perhaps a limitation of teachers’ ability to support their students with MPA, particularly as it relates to mental health. This has been reflected in studies by Moura & Serra (Reference MOURA and SERRA2021) and Sieger (Reference SIEGER2017), who found that teachers expressed a desire to help their students with MPA but felt ill-equipped to do so due to a lack of training in this area. The apparent gap between teachers’ recognition of MPA as a common issue and their ability to address it effectively may be rooted in the broader context of music education. Despite the growing mental and physical health demands of musicians (Araújo et al., Reference ARAÚJO, WASLEY, PERKINS, ATKINS, REDDING, GINSBORG and WILLIAMON2017; Matei et al., Reference MATEI, BROAD, GOLDBART and GINSBORG2018; Pierce, Reference PIERCE2012; Zander et al., Reference ZANDER, VOLTMER and SPAHN2010), many tertiary music programmes internationally – the setting where most prospective teachers receive their formal education – still neglect health education in the training of musicians (Baadjou et al., Reference BAADJOU, VERBUNT, VAN EIJSDEN-BESSELING, DE BIE, GIRARD, TWISK and SMEETS2018; Perkins et al., Reference PERKINS, REID, ARAÚJO, CLARK and WILLIAMON2017). Consequently, many studio tutors may find themselves in a position where they are expected to address MPA with their students without having received adequate training or support in this area themselves.
Despite the view that MPA is normal, most tutors viewed MPA rather negatively, highlighting the detrimental impacts it can have on performance quality, and in some cases, well-being. There were, however, some tutors who emphasised the facilitative impact MPA can have on performance, aligning with existing definitions in the literature (Langendörfer et al., Reference LANGENDÖRFER, HODAPP, KREUTZ and BONGARD2006; Nagel, Reference NAGEL2010; Simoens et al., Reference SIMOENS, PUTTONEN and TERVANIEMI2015). For example, Participant 3 offered an alternate, positive label of ‘performance stress’ instead of MPA. Similarly, Brodsky (Reference BRODSKY1996) proposed the term Music-Performers’ Stress Syndrome to link MPA to the demands of a career in music and to avoid attributing it to personality deficiencies or psychopathology, which often characterises common definitions of MPA, with words like ‘condition’, ‘disabling’, ‘illness’ and ‘disease’ used (Herman & Clark, Reference HERMAN and CLARK2023). The replacement of the word ‘anxiety’ by Participant 3 might similarly suggest a reluctance to medicalise MPA and instead normalise its presence more positively, perhaps highlighting a misalignment between common definitions used in the literature (Kenny, Reference KENNY, Juslin and Sloboda2009) to how some teachers conceptualise MPA. Moreover, it points to the diversity of perspectives that exist about MPA and thus its complexity.
Another finding of this study is that for most of these teachers, a change of lesson behaviour occurs in the lead-up to performances/examinations. For the teachers, a priority of pre-performance lessons seems to be preparing the student for a high-stress situation but simultaneously creating a more relaxed environment where mistakes ‘don’t matter’. If downplaying the importance of mistakes is implicated in a change of teaching behaviours as performances draw near, then this encouragement might contrast with the normal conduct of lessons, potentially sending mixed messages to students about the priorities of music-making. For example, Participant 8 said their pupils ‘don’t quite understand that mistakes are pretty common’, but presumably, they have told their students to aim for correctness in regular lessons, until the performance approaches and the teacher changes their tune, saying now that ‘it’s no big deal’ if their students make a mistake.
There is evidence to show that teachers can treat mistakes as opportunities for learning rather than failures (Blackwell, Reference BLACKWELL2022; Moura & Serra, Reference MOURA and SERRA2021). In a study of interpersonal dynamics in a violin studio, Blackwell (Reference BLACKWELL2022) concluded that tutors often disregarded minor ‘in-the-moment’ mistakes as they recognised that these were technical errors unlikely to persist. Moura & Serra (Reference MOURA and SERRA2021) also found that teachers normalised errors as part of a ‘work in progress’ and as opportunities for learning. The current study differs from these, by exploring approaches specific to pre-performance lessons: we cannot assume that the tutors studied by Blackwell (Reference BLACKWELL2022) and Moura & Serra (Reference MOURA and SERRA2021) made no particular changes because of imminent performances, and their positive approach to mistakes does not necessarily mean that they were regarded as unimportant. Therefore, while it is possible that the tutors in the current study may have dismissed mistakes because they were simply one-offs, the potential issue lies in the change of lesson behaviour if this response to mistakes is not familiar for pupils.
Arguably, dismissing mistakes in pre-performance lessons can be counterproductive, possibly leading to increased anxiety in student musicians. Persson (Reference PERSSON1994) claimed that a shift of gear relating to content being taught in lessons can occur right before a performance, and that regular teaching approaches are heavily focused on instruction and analysis, which can suddenly shift to a focus on musical expression and interpretation. This shift from technical mastery to artistic interpretation may pose a challenge for students. Persson (Reference PERSSON1994) argued that suggestions that the student should ‘stop thinking’ or ‘not think too much’ are unreasonable (p. 88), and within the current study, ‘not worrying about mistakes’ (Participants 6 and 11) might be difficult for students to implement if their regular lessons have been focused on resolving them. This idea was reflected by Participant 1 who warned against the nit-picking and focus on correction that tends to happen in regular lessons, suggesting that teachers should ‘bring it down a notch’. However, there were some exceptions, with two tutors reflecting that their approaches to MPA management should be implemented more regularly in lessons, rather than added on as a separate activity in pre-performance lessons (Participants 4 and 5). Although the current study has focused on the attitudes of teachers, rather than the content of lessons as in Persson’s (Reference PERSSON1994) study, the shift from a negative approach of eliminating mistakes to a positive approach of embracing mistakes might be confusing for students.
When teachers were asked about how they prepare their students for upcoming performances and examinations, they tended to focus on whether MPA affected the quality of performance rather than the ‘affective, cognitive, somatic, and behavioural symptoms’ of MPA as defined by Kenny (Reference KENNY, Juslin and Sloboda2009, p. 433). The teachers did not address so much how their students felt in pre-performance lessons, but instead, seemed to focus on mistakes. Interestingly, Kenny (Reference KENNY, Juslin and Sloboda2009) explains that MPA ‘may or may not impair the quality of musical performance’ (p. 433), but the prominence of teachers mentioning mistakes in this study perhaps reflects their belief that the occurrence of mistakes is an immediate cause, or consequence, of MPA. Further, the focus on mistake management and its connection to MPA calls attention to how performance quality is commonly evaluated in general. Within empirical studies on MPA, performance quality is often measured by the presence or absence of mistakes (Thompson & Williamon, Reference THOMPSON and WILLIAMON2003; Zdzinski, Reference ZDZINSKI1991). Concern over mistakes has been reported as a significant predictor of MPA (Patston & Osborne, Reference PATSTON and OSBORNE2016), and the very prominence of mistake-making in this study suggests that teachers would agree with this correlation, directing their efforts toward mistake management more than the affective aspects of MPA. The tutors’ emphasis on mistake-making could also stem from their lack of training in addressing the affective components of MPA.
There seems to be a further danger: a shifting attitude toward mistakes, with teachers downplaying their importance as performances approach, might convey reduced expectations to their students. While comments such as ‘you don’t have to perform at 100%’ (Participant 13) might help reduce the pressure that students – or others – impose on themselves, they might undermine their pupils’ confidence, suggesting that they are incapable of achieving high standards and possibly affecting their self-efficacy and motivation. In a study investigating the relationship between levels of social support received by music school students and the level of their musical achievements, Nogaj & Ossowski (Reference NOGAJ and OSSOWSKI2015) found a high correlation between the level of performance quality and evaluative support that students received from their teachers, defined as ‘imparting an understanding to the supported person that they have great potential, abilities and competence’ (p. 303). Thus, a perception of lowered expectations could result in lower-quality performances.
When the teachers did touch on the affective aspects of MPA, their own role could be implicated, moving, for example, towards a more ‘relaxed’ approach in pre-performance lessons, to compensate for fear of the approaching performance, and sometimes showing an awareness that their own presence can cause MPA in their students. This has some resonance with the studies by Ryan & Andrews (Reference RYAN and ANDREWS2009) and Ryan et al. (Reference RYAN, BOUCHER and RYAN2021), who reported that choral singers and piano students sometimes felt nervous about playing for their instructors, for a variety of reasons including a lack of preparation, fear of disappointing the teacher and an expectation for perfection. Such research does suggest that music educators – often regarded as figures of authority (Burwell, Reference BURWELL2023) – can prompt performance anxiety in students.
Conclusion and future directions
The teachers in this study were enthusiastic about supporting their students, clearly regarding MPA management as an important issue and one in which they should be taking a role. This was demonstrated in their willingness to participate in the interview study and in some detailed and thoughtful responses to the interview questions. The teachers showed an appreciation of MPA and its effects, presumably through their own experience as well as the vicarious experience of their students.
When it came to taking action, they were able to discuss a range of strategies, consistent with the research literature. However, their discussion tended to focus on the technical impact of MPA – particularly, making mistakes – more than the affective experience of their students; and even in mistake management, it was not clear that they thought their own approaches were effective. Often, they spoke in terms of what ‘teachers’ do, rather than focusing on their own practices; and of what ‘should’ be done, presumably indicating a view that to date, MPA management has not been supported reliably.
There are various tensions here, at various levels: between emphasising the importance of MPA, and trying not to mention it at all; between teachers emphasising correct and even perfect performances in regular lessons, and then downplaying the importance of mistakes in pre-performance lessons; between an emphasis on mistakes, repeatedly mentioned in the discussion of MPA management, and a claim that they are not important; and among characterisations of music-making as a hobby, a source of identity, or a ‘massive gift’ that can be either realised or frustrated.
Taken together, these observations and tensions provide grounds for future research. First, training to cover gaps experienced by teachers in confidence as well as their access to reliable support for managing MPA needs development. Second, future research could investigate how different studio teaching contexts, such as music institutions and private settings, might influence teachers’ approaches to MPA management, as this study did not differentiate between these contexts. Such investigations could provide valuable insights into how teaching environments affect MPA awareness and management strategies.
These research directions implicate a role for future studies in investigating current practices, helping to frame both problems and inquiries, as well as exploring the types of support studio teachers need to effectively address the complexities in MPA management. This approach would not only provide insights into current practices but also ensure that music educators receive the support they deserve while navigating these challenging aspects of their role, ultimately benefiting both teachers and students in managing MPA.
Data availability statement
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, IM, upon reasonable request.
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to Dr. Sandy Evans for her support in the lead up to this project.
Financial support
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by the University of New South Wales Scientia Ph.D. Scholarship Scheme [UGCA1137] held by IM.
Competing interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.
Ethical standard
This study was approved by the University of New South Wales Human Research Ethics Advisory (approval no. HC220436) on August 29, 2022.
Consent to participate
Written informed consent was obtained from the respondents before participating in this study.
Author Biographies
Isabella Mazzarolo is a Lecturer at the Melbourne Conservatorium of Music, University of Melbourne and a classical pianist and piano pedagogue with a PhD from the University of New South Wales, where she was awarded the Scientia PhD Scholarship. Her research focuses on musicians’ health and well-being, particularly performance anxiety and the role of educators in supporting students to manage it. With a strong interest in the interface between research and practice, Isabella’s work has been presented at leading international conferences and translated into professional development workshops for organisations including the Voice Study Centre and the Music Teachers’ Association of NSW.
Kim Burwell is a researcher, supervisor and educator whose work focuses on instrumental and vocal performance, teaching and learning. At the University of New South Wales, she has designed and convened an undergraduate stream in music pedagogy and a professional development program for studio music teachers. Her monograph Music Studio Teaching was published in 2012 by Ashgate, and more recent studies include student approaches to practice, patterns of behaviour in advanced voice lessons, authoritative instruction, power relations in the studio and structural differences between classical and jazz lessons.
Emery Schubert is a Professor of Music at the University of New South Wales and a recipient of several prestigious fellowships, including an Australian Research Council Future Fellowship. He has published over 150 peer-reviewed works, contributed chapters to Oxford University Press volumes such as Emotion in Music, co-edited Expressiveness in Music Performance and has served on the editorial boards of nearly all major international music psychology journals. A foundation member and past President of the Australian Music and Psychology Society and cofounder of the Empirical Musicology Laboratory at UNSW, his research focuses on continuous response, well-being and the psychology of emotion and aesthetics in music.
Margaret Osborne is a registered psychologist with an interdisciplinary appointment as Associate Professor at the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences and the Melbourne Conservatorium of Music, University of Melbourne. Her work in performance psychology spans curriculum development, editorial leadership as Associate Editor of Frontiers in Psychology: Performance Science, presidency of the Australian Society for Performing Arts Healthcare and ongoing clinical practice, notable for her research on MPA. Margaret’s research focuses on improving education and performance through self-regulated learning and emotion regulation techniques, advancing best-practice approaches to build confidence, health and resilience across the performing arts, sport, public speaking and academic contexts.
Open access
